Re: ? understanding the world by math

On Feb 1, 12:56 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, Mariano Suárez-Alvarez



<mariano.suarezalva...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 31, 4:57 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 30, 11:17 pm, Mariano Suárez-Alvarez

<mariano.suarezalva...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 10:27 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 30, 4:09 pm, Cheng Cosine <asec...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi:

 Math represents a set of powerful tools to help us approach

the true nature of this world. Though linear system theory provides

many very power tools for us to approach the nature, the real world

in many cases is not linear.  Then, except conducting linearization

to under a small part of the nature within a small range, whatelse

can we use to understand this world?

The polysign numbers inherently contain spacetime correspondence due
to the behavior of the math beyond sign three. These higher sign
systems are somewhat nonlinear, though I hesitate to use that word
strictly since the higher sign systems do still obey the associative,
commutative, and distributive laws.
[snip]

What does this paragraph possibly mean?!

What does it mean that a sign system is nonlinear? What
difference is there from that to its being only "somewhat"
nonlinear? What on earth is a "spacetime correspondence"?
In what way can an algebraic system "contain" a "spacetime
correspondence"?

The difference (or one of the differences) between math and,
say, poetry is that unless you make explicit the meaning of
the terms you use, you are plainly and simply not saying
anything. Deep sounding mumbo-jumbo only impresses... hmmm...
the editors of Social Text.

-- m

Mariano I am so sorry for you that you cannot understand such a simple
thing.

I honestly cannot tell if I understand or not: as I have stated,
you have, as far as I know, never explained what meaning
the terms I mentioned (and quite a few others I  have seen you
use elsewhere) have, and I can confidently say that there is no
standard, well-known meaning attached to a claim such as "The
polysign
numbers inherently contain spacetime correspondence due to the
behavior of the math beyond sign three".

[paragraph on how all humans are limited, and on my refusal
to accept the polysign numbers snipped]
I'll go over the spacetime correspondence here again for you or some
other reader who thinks I am lame. The family of polysign numbers is
large. The family is
   P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, ...
Yet of all these systems only three preserve the following behavior:
   | z1 z2 | = | z1 || z2 |

I do not recall your listing *what* properties you expect
an absolute value function to have.

I've got to check in right here because you seem to think that I am
defining a new absolute value function. I am not. This is the usual
absolute value.

If by that you mean that you are defining, say for P3,

(*) | a0 e0 + a1 e1 + a2 e2 | = sqrt(a0^2 + a1^2 + a2^2)

then you should observe that this does not make sense,
because it is not well defined: for example, it is part
of your definition of P3 that

e0 + e1 + e2 = 2 e0 + 2 e1 + 2 e2

but using formula (*) you get

| e0 + e1 + e2 + e3 | = sqrt(3)

and

| 2 e0 + 2 e1 + 2 e2 + 2 e3 | = 2 sqrt(3).

It is the same in P2 as it is on the reals. It is the
same in P3 as it is on the complex numbers. It is the same in P4 as it
is on P3; simply generalize in sign. It is simply the distance
function. The nuances of difference for me come at a different stage
of awareness. That some believe this absolute value to be a higher
form than the types it applies to is a deep mistake. Instead the
polysign construction exposes magnitude as fundamental, sign being a
discrete type whose marriage to this continuous unsigned magnitude
yields the real numbers, the complex numbers, and a myriad of higher
forms... also let's not forget that little rascal P1.


You Mariano insist on applying the old language to a new language and
will claim that any inconsistencies are a failing of the new language.

I have never mentioned any kind of inconsistencies in the "new
language":
I've just repeatedly tried to make the point that it does not add
absolutely anything to what the "old language" provides. In fact, I
have
shown you how your Pn is simply an instance of a general construction,
which has been studied and *understood* for a century by now, and
how what you term "the old language" is extraordinarily useful in
obtaining information.

You see though the consequences of this new language range widely.

Quite the contrary: I have yet to see anything useful coming out
of it.

There are unmistakeable gains to be had.

While that may indeed be the case, I have not seen any gain yet,
only claims that there are.

Upon turning the new language
onto the old one then the inconsistencies become shuffled another way
such that the old language becomes suspect.

What inconsistencies are you talking about?

< [long paragraph going from the "tear between say a string theory and
a
classical particle theory" to "superpositional space", elided]

We'll eventually come to a dispute over just what is meant by
   P1 P2 P3
as a symbolic construction. There is a healthy discussion, but one
that few will undertake because to forsake isotropic space for a
structured spacetime seems beyond hope to that human judgement system,
though Einstein did come part way in his convincing usage of the
Minkowski metric. Here I have answers but first you would properly
have to ask the questions since if I try to preanswer them it's as if
I'm shoving a bunch of information down your throat and it would then
simply become regurgitant. So it goes for the human race. Most simply
gag on my attempts here and so my stream of information simply flows
into databanks. They don't seem to mind holding onto it since it is
just trivia to them.

I simply love the almost endearing way in which you put yourself
in a position pretty much beyond humanity, although of course
you do acknowledge that a few select, among whom Einstein, may have
partaken in the higher insights you are so generously sharing
with us---sharing hopelessly, in view of the limitations of
our poor human judgement system which so hinders our understanding,
but sharing nonetheless.

I'm torn between thankfulness and laughter ;-)

If the only one you are
interested in is the multiplicative property

(*)  | z1 z2 | = | z1 | | z2 |

then you should know that all the Pn *do* have an appropriate
'absolute value function' which is multiplicative.

This follows trivially from the fact that the Pn, when
m >= 2, are isomorphic as rings to direct products of
copies of R and C. The actual formulas, though, are rather
messy (but they can be obtained in principle with simple
linear algebra)

I am suspect that these can be clearly instantiated in your system. My
own analysis of P4 as an RxC space exposes that the error in the
product is symmetrical to the resultant, suggesting that an infinite
series will be necessary to cleanly compute the correct resultant.

You are suspect that *what* exactly can be instantiated in my system?
What error in what product? In what way is that error symmetrical?
What "resultant"? What are you possibly talking about in "an infinite
series will be necessary to cleanly compute the correct resultant"?

While the analysis on this webpage is partly graphical the linear
compensations that might make your claim clean in two iterations have
been tried:
   http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Deformation/P4T3Comparison.html
So perhaps you'll be able to state the problem to some precision
level. Until you've done this I think maybe you better keep this
argument in check a bit. You say it is possible, but who has actually
done it? The polysign space is new. Could it be that it can challenge
the ways that you preach? I do think it is possible, especially given
the reaching attempts of Grassman and the bunk that has become
acceptable in the name of progress. People have been reaching for this
new ground for some time. I should be more respectful, but when the
reachers have become accepted and the reached unaccepted then the
shaky footing of the reaching tower leaves one wondering what they are
doing hanging around in its midst.

I honestly do not know what this paragraph means.

-- m

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ? understanding the world by math
    ... to the behavior of the math beyond sign three. ... In what way can an algebraic system "contain" a "spacetime ... to accept the polysign numbers snipped] ... You Mariano insist on applying the old language to a new language and ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: ? understanding the world by math
    ... On Feb 1, 2:56 pm, Mariano Suárez-Alvarez ... to accept the polysign numbers snipped] ... defining a new absolute value function. ... You Mariano insist on applying the old language to a new language and ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: ? understanding the world by math
    ... to accept the polysign numbers snipped] ... defining a new absolute value function. ... You Mariano insist on applying the old language to a new language and ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: SR-ians lost without absolute background
    ... To know which twin ages less, SR-ians sputter, we look ... absolute, just as it is in Newtonian mechanics. ... of relativity of acceleration, which is taken up in GR! ... this use of the term "absolute" to spacetime is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: ? understanding the world by math
    ... I'll go over the spacetime correspondence here ... you are defining a NEW absolute value, in the sense that your absolute value is - i assume* - just the distance to the origin. ... the new language. ...
    (sci.math)